Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (1 July) . . Page.. 2072 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

Back to the point. We put the date out to November. The date is out to November because, as I said, we would like to get some concrete information and would like to get some verification of it. I would really want to see the latest numbers on the prospects of this stadium before I commit my name to another $2.5m, as popped up yesterday.

Mr Moore: You have already told us that you are not going to commit your name to it.

MR QUINLAN: Yes, but I am actually trying to convince members of the Assembly that they ought not to. Given the avowed ignorance yesterday of all events relating to Bruce, they might actually avail themselves of an estimates hearing so that we might be able to clarify why we need two Bills, why we need to double approve and why we need another $2.5m. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I commend my motion to the Assembly.

MS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (5.30): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the motion is one that I would assume everyone, apart from those opposite, would oppose because it seeks to use the committee system for straight political ends. People in this house, Ms Tucker particularly, speak in glowing ways about how important the committee system is to this Assembly. This motion just seeks to use the committee system for no purpose whatsoever. Even though there were no dollars for Bruce Stadium in the budget or in the Appropriation Bill that the Estimates Committee looked at, I indicated to the Estimates Committee that we were happy to answer questions on Bruce Stadium and did for a very long period of time. So, the Estimates Committee has already had the capacity to ask any questions it liked on the Bruce Stadium redevelopment.

The issue of how long this inquiry would go is a very real one, because it would be looking not just at the Appropriation (Bruce Stadium and CanDeliver Limited) Bill 1999 but also at the amendment to the Appropriation Bill. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, if we pass the Appropriation Bill without the amendment, where would the amendment stand? It would not be attached to anything. What is the point in sending it to a committee if it will lapse? That shows just how stupid and how political this is and how absolutely quirky it is. We should call him Quirky Quinlan, without doubt. This is simply an effort to send the Bruce Stadium redevelopment to another committee; there are no other reasons. If there are any unanswered questions about Bruce, those opposite can ask them in the Assembly and they can put them on notice.

Mr Quinlan asked a question on how the two Bills work. I am very surprised that he does not understand that. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, we have a retrospective Bill for payments in the past. Tricky? That is usually what retrospective means. That is for payments in the past. We have got that far. As Mr Quinlan knows, we have a short-term CBA loan which actually expires on 15 July. The CBA refinanced, as we know, or was used to finance some of those payments in the past. The prospective Bill pays these loans plus the money that we have spent on Bruce.

Now, it is easy. Quite simply, we have got money in the past, and that is what the retrospective Bill is for. The prospective one is for money in the past plus $2.5m. What is the $2.5m for? It is for the invoices that are still to be paid. You would not retrospectively appropriate for bills that you had not actually paid. So you have got two sets. One lot is retrospective and one lot is prospective. The prospective one is $2.5m more than the retrospective one because of the invoices that still have to be paid.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .